Characterised by technological progress, we are faced with the challenge of how the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used for the common good. AI-powered perspective generation for communities is one way to connect local needs with global challenges. But while this concept offers enormous opportunities, it also highlights a fundamental problem: the tendency of existing reward systems to aim for maximum individualisation rather than promoting global resonance.
This essay addresses this critical discrepancy and explores ways to transform reward systems. We aim to move from a paradigm of individual advantage to a model that emphasises the optimisation of resonance within and between communities. This approach touches on fundamental aspects of human motivation, social dynamics and collective intelligence.
1. Transformation of reward systems
Traditional reward systems that focus on individual benefits are often based on the concept of ‘homo economicus’ (Persky, 1995). This model assumes a rationally acting, self-interest-maximising individual. In the context of AI-supported perspective generation and the need for global cooperation, however, this model proves to be inadequate. The shift to community-orientated reward systems requires a new paradigm.
a) Prosocial rewards: A promising approach is the development of systems that reward altruistic behaviour and contributions to the common good (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003). AI systems could be used to recognise and reinforce prosocial actions, for example by granting social recognition or access to community resources as a reward.
b) Reputation economy: The creation of mechanisms that reward social capital and contributions to the community (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) could be a further step. AI algorithms could manage complex reputation systems that take into account not only quantitative contributions, but also qualitative aspects such as empathy, creativity and problem-solving skills.
c) Gamification of the common good: The use of game elements to promote community-serving behaviour (McGonigal, 2011) offers enormous potential. AI could generate personalised, public good-oriented ‘quests’ that motivate individuals to contribute to solving local and global challenges.
2. Collective resonance and 4E cognition
4E cognition (Embodied, Embedded, Extended, Enacted) emphasises the context dependency of cognitive processes (Newen et al., 2018). The challenge is to harmonise these individual cognitive processes with collective resonance. AI systems could play a key role here:
a) Collective mindfulness: AI could be used to develop practices that promote awareness of collective states and needs (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). For example, AI-supported visualisations of complex social dynamics could increase the understanding of collective processes.
b) Social synchronisation: The promotion of activities that create collective rhythms and shared experiences (Launay et al., 2016) could be supported by AI-orchestrated community events or synchronised global actions.
c) Empathy training: AI-supported programmes to increase emotional intelligence and empathy (Singer & Klimecki, 2014) could offer personalised learning paths tailored to the specific needs and cultural backgrounds of participants.
3. Optimisation of the resonance of a resonant space
The concept of resonance, as described by Rosa (2016), emphasises the quality of the relationship between the individual and the environment. Optimising this resonance at the community level requires new approaches that can be supported by AI:
a) Collective decision-making: AI systems could be used to develop processes that promote and reward consensus-based decisions (Fishkin, 2018). They could carry out complex stakeholder analyses and generate compromise proposals that take various interests into account.
b) Resonance metrics: AI could help in the creation and analysis of indicators that measure and visualise the quality of collective resonance (Helliwell et al., 2020). These metrics could go beyond traditional prosperity indicators and include aspects such as social cohesion, environmental sustainability and cultural vitality.
c) Adaptive environments: AI could support the design of physical and digital spaces that dynamically adapt to collective needs (de Waal & de Lange, 2019). This could range from intelligent urban planning systems to virtual community spaces that adapt to the needs of their users in real time.
4. Neuroscientific perspectives
Neuroscience offers important insights into the neural basis of reward and social cognition that could be relevant for the design of new AI-assisted reward systems:
a) Mirror neuron systems: AI systems could be developed to enhance the human potential for empathic resonance (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004) by creating situations and interactions that activate these neuronal systems.
b) Social reward systems in the brain: AI could be used to design environments and experiences that specifically activate reward centres through prosocial behaviour (Decety et al., 2015), thus creating positive reinforcement for community-oriented action.
c) Neuroplasticity: AI-supported interventions could be developed to promote brain changes that support community-orientated thinking and action (Davidson & McEwen, 2012). This could include personalised training tailored to the specific neural profiles of participants.
5. Technological support
Modern technologies, especially AI, can play a decisive role in the implementation and scaling of new reward systems:
a) Blockchain for social capital: AI could support the development and management of distributed ledger technologies that are used to record and reward contributions to the common good (Pazaitis et al., 2017). This could create a transparent and tamper-resistant system for managing social capital.
b) AI-supported resonance analysis: Advanced algorithms could be developed to recognise and promote collective resonance states (Pentland, 2014). These could analyse complex social dynamics in real time and suggest interventions to optimise collective resonance.
c) Virtual and augmented reality: AI could be used to create immersive experiences that promote collective resonance and make it tangible (Bailenson, 2018). This could range from virtual community spaces to augmented reality overlays that visualise social connections and collaborative actions.
6. Challenges and ethical considerations
The transformation of reward systems through AI also harbours considerable challenges and ethical questions:
a) Privacy and autonomy: A balance must be found between collective optimisation and individual freedom (Nissenbaum, 2009). AI systems must be designed in such a way that they respect privacy and preserve individual autonomy.
b) Cultural differences: Implementation must take into account different cultural conceptions of community and reward (Henrich et al., 2010). AI systems must be able to recognise and respect cultural nuances.
c) Potential for abuse: There is a risk of manipulation or exploitation through misdirected reward systems (Zuboff, 2019). Robust security measures and ethical guidelines must be implemented to prevent abuse.
d) Inclusion and equity: It must be ensured that new AI-supported reward systems do not lead to new forms of marginalisation (O’Neil, 2016). The systems must be designed inclusively and actively address potential biases.
Conclusion
The transformation of reward systems to optimise resonance in communities, supported by AI-powered perspective generation, represents a paradigmatic shift in our understanding of motivation and social organisation. This approach promises to address some of the most fundamental challenges of our time by combining the inherent human capacity for co-operation and empathy with the capabilities of modern AI technology.
The implementation of such systems requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates findings from neuroscience, psychology, sociology, economics and computer science. It will also require constant ethical reflection and participatory design processes to ensure that these new systems actually serve the common good and do not lead to unintended negative consequences.
Ultimately, this approach could pave the way for a global civilisation in which individual well-being and collective harmony are not seen as opposites, but as mutually reinforcing goals. The integration of AI into this process appears to be a prerequisite for better understanding and structuring complex social dynamics, developing personalised interventions and promoting global cooperation on a previously impossible scale.
This could herald a new era of social evolution in which the optimisation of a resonance space, supported by AI, becomes a central driving force for human progress and global problem solving. The challenge now is to put these concepts into practice responsibly and inclusively to shape a future where technology not only enhances our capabilities, but also strengthens our connectedness as a global community.
CONTINUE TO
References
Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. WW Norton & Company.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. HarperCollins.
Davidson, R. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Social influences on neuroplasticity: stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nature neuroscience, 15(5), 689-695.
de Waal, M., & de Lange, M. (2019). Introduction—The hacker, the city and their institutions: From grassroots urbanism to systemic change. In The Hackable City (pp. 1-22). Springer, Singapore.
Decety, J., Bartal, I. B. A., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150077.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785-791.
Fishkin, J. S. (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking: Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford University Press.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (2020). World Happiness Report 2020. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Launay, J., Tarr, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (2016). Synchrony as an adaptive mechanism for large‐scale human social bonding. Ethology, 122(10), 779-789.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin.
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press.
Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
Pazaitis, A., De Filippi, P., & Kostakis, V. (2017). Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 105-115.
Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How good ideas spread-the lessons from a new science. Penguin.
Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The ethology of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221-231.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual review of neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Suhrkamp Verlag.
Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology, 24(18), R875-R878.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514-524.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books.